On Mon, Feb 08 2016, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Helmut Grohne [2016-02-08 20:10 +0100]:
>> Hi Wookey,
>> So I still think that my patch is simpler for package maintainers using
>> flex, precisely because they do not have to think. In fact, nothing
>> changes for them. It just magically starts working for cross compiling
>> as well.
> True. It's up to Manoj really. I think this thread has clearly covered
> the issues. (apart from someone needing to work out how many thing
> _actually_ need libfl-dev).
> Yours does produce 3 binary packages instead of 2. But that's quite a
> small overhead in exchange for no more work than 'upload new flex'
I have now upload flex-2.6.0-5 to experimental, and asked on
#debian-qa for the credentials to run a partial archive rebuild. Once
#the rebuild is done, we’ll have a better idea of the scope of the
problem, and whether it is better to just have people install libfl-dev
whenever they need flex, or not. I am not wedded to my approach yet, I
just wanted some more numbers.
Apart from Helmut, and I, which have opinions on the two
approaches, does anyone else care to weigh in?
Manoj
--
Kent's Heuristic: Look for it first where you'd most like to find it.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
4096R/C5779A1C E37E 5EC5 2A01 DA25 AD20 05B6 CF48 9438 C577 9A1C
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature